JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. I.A. No.1779 of 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. This interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer for early hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition. 3. Since, hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application is disposed of being infructuous. Cr.M.P. No. 774 of 2025 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar in connection with Deoghar Town P.S. Case No.363 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. No. 1285 of 2024 whereby and where under, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 498A, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code basing upon the materials available in the case diary specifically in paragraph nos.2 to 6 and 10 as well as the other materials available in the record including the FIR and the charge sheet submitted by the police after the investigation of the case. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the informant lodged a written report with the Officer-in-Charge of Deoghar Town police station alleging therein that consequent upon the marriage on 21.02.2019 with the son of the petitioners, after the petitioners taking dowry of articles worth about Rs.50,00,000/- and besides cash of several lakhs of rupees, the informant was kept properly in her matrimonial house for about a week. Before the marriage, the petitioners and the co- accused persons made the demand of a four-wheeler vehicle of ‘Fortuner’ make but they were persuaded to go for the marriage without insisting for the said dowry demand. After the marriage, the petitioners along with co-accused persons told the informant that she is not of the status as the petitioners. The petitioner no.1 is a Deputy Development Commissioner and he has got the marriage of his son solemnized in a wrong place. The petitioners insisted the dowry demand of four-wheeler vehicle of ‘Fortuner’ make and harassed the informant in several ways and manner to coerce to meet their unlawful demand of the four-wheeler vehicle of ‘Fortuner’ make. The informant was made to work as a maid servant and she was not even provided proper food. The petitioners insisted the dowry demand of four-wheeler vehicle of ‘Fortuner’ make and harassed the informant in several ways and manner to coerce to meet their unlawful demand of the four-wheeler vehicle of ‘Fortuner’ make. The informant was made to work as a maid servant and she was not even provided proper food. She was not talked with properly. She was abused regularly and was threatened to be assaulted by raising hand at her and all these things were done as part of harassment, for the purpose of coercing the informant to meet the said unlawful demand of the petitioners of four-wheeler vehicle of ‘Fortuner’ make. Whenever the informant was intimating her maternal uncle and mother, they used to come and used to make the petitioners understand their difficulty; at which the harassment used to be stopped for some days. After being treated with cruelty and assault, the petitioners used to drove out the informant from her matrimonial house; so she used to go to her parental house and used to stay there for some days and again used to come back. On 05.03.2024 the petitioners along with co-accused persons attempted to murder the informant for not fulfilling their said dowry demand. On 10.05.2024 at about 09:00 hours the petitioners took away all the stree dhan jewellery worth lakhs of rupees and clothes and drove out the informant from her matrimonial house after assaulting her. 4. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Deoghar Town P.S. Case No. 363 of 2024 and took up investigation of the case. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the petitioners and basing upon the same, cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate as already indicated above. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and the petitioners are old persons. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the informant continuously subjected the informant to cruelty by showing ill behaviour and indifferent attitude. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and the petitioners are old persons. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the informant continuously subjected the informant to cruelty by showing ill behaviour and indifferent attitude. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the son of the petitioners filed a petition for dissolution of his marriage in the Family Court, Saran at Chapra on 03.04.2024 and notice was issued to the opposite party no.2 on 21.05.2024 and after the informant came to know about filing of the divorce application, the present FIR was lodged on 21.06.2024. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the investigation was carried out by the I.O. in a biased and tainted manner and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar while taking cognizance did not consider the motive for filing the present FIR. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is undue delay in filing the present FIR. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 suffered severe paralytic attack and was admitted in hospital and the petitioner no.2 has also suffered from severe chronic disease and was also treated in hospital. 6. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Others vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 wherein in the facts of that case where there was a second F.I.R. and the allegations made in the complaint was that all the accused persons harassed the complainant mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy, in the facts of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quashed the F.I.R. of that case. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Preeti Gupta & Another vs. State of Jharkhand & Another reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 wherein in the facts of that case in the complaint, allegation was made that a luxury car was demanded by all the accused persons named in the complaint and the petitioner No.2 assaulted the complainant either at Kanpur or at Mumbai and except the demand of luxury car, no incident of harassment took place at Ranchi. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in para-20 of the judgment in the case of Preeti Gupta & Another vs. State of Jharkhand & Another (supra) relied upon its judgment in the case of R .P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings. The relevant para-20 of Preeti Gupta & Another vs. State of Jharkhand & Another (supra) reads as under:- “20. This Court had occasion to examine the legal position in a large number of cases. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [ AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239] this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings: (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.” Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 8. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition and drawing attention of this Court to the FIR and the impugned order dated 21.11.2024, it is submitted by the learned Addl. 8. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition and drawing attention of this Court to the FIR and the impugned order dated 21.11.2024, it is submitted by the learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that in the said order it has categorically been mentioned by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar specifically by relying upon the paragraph nos.2 to 6 and 10 of the case diary that there are materials available which prima facie are sufficient to constitute each of the offences in respect of which cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar. It is next submitted by the learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the contention of the petitioners that the I.O. has conducted the investigation of the case in biased manner is baseless and vague statement intended to only cast aspersion to the honest and upright officer. It is further submitted by the learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that no specific reason has been assigned by the petitioners as to in what manner the I.O. is biased, on the other hand, the petitioners have withheld the paragraph nos.2 to 6 and 10 of the case diary from this Court, knowing pretty well that materials against them are there in those paragraphs of the case diary, even though copy of the police paper including the said paragraphs of the case diary have been supplied to the petitioners and the case is next fixed to 11.03.2026 for consideration of framing of charge in the case before the learned court concerned. It is further submitted by the learned Addl. It is further submitted by the learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that unlike the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Others vs. State of Bihar & Others (supra) and Preeti Gupta & Another vs. State of Jharkhand & Another (supra) , in this case, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of demanding the dowry of four-wheeler vehicle of ‘Fortuner’ make, harassing the informant by making her work as a maidservant, denying her proper food and not even properly talking to her, abusing her of an on and even raising hands at her and not being satisfied with such inhumane treatment, they even went to the extent of driving out the informant from her matrimonial house several times for non-fulfilling of the demand of dowry of the four-wheeler vehicle of ‘Fortuner’ make. Therefore, it is submitted that the ratio of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Others vs. State of Bihar & Others (supra) and Preeti Gupta & Another vs. State of Jharkhand & Another (supra) , is not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is lastly submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 9. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that at the stage of taking cognizance and issue of process, the Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor is he required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the informant. The undisputed fact remains that police after investigation of the case found the allegation against the petitioners to be true and submitted charge sheet. The undisputed fact also remains that paragraph nos.2 to 6 and 10 of the case diary as well as other materials in the record goes to show the commission of the offence in respect of which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar has taken cognizance. The undisputed fact also remains that paragraph nos.2 to 6 and 10 of the case diary as well as other materials in the record goes to show the commission of the offence in respect of which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar has taken cognizance. Unlike the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Others vs. State of Bihar & Others (supra) and Preeti Gupta & Another vs. State of Jharkhand & Another (supra) there is direct and specific allegations against the petitioners of harassing the informant to coerce her to meet the unlawful demand of four-wheeler vehicle of ‘Fortuner’ make, in several ways and means hence, in the considered opinion of this Court the ratio of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Others vs. State of Bihar & Others (supra) and Preeti Gupta & Another vs. State of Jharkhand & Another (supra) , is not applicable to the facts of the case. 10. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the proceeding of the petitioners be nipped in the bud at this nascent stage by quashing the entire criminal proceeding. The case is already next fixed for consideration of framing of charge by the learned trial court. Therefore, this is a fit case where the learned Magistrate be given the opportunity to take a call in the matter of framing charge. 11. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without of any merit is dismissed.